Apple has successfully changed the narrative around their restrictions into talks about security and privacy. It's just not the case. A company with the resources of Apple could absolutely find a...
Apple has successfully changed the narrative around their restrictions into talks about security and privacy.
It's just not the case. A company with the resources of Apple could absolutely find a way to allow more 3rd party support without significantly compromising on security, but they choose not to because it's more profitable for them if you only buy Apple watches and frame it as "we're the only company you can trust to keep your data secure".
The sad reality is that the alternatives which do choose to be more open are also a hell of a lot more lax with privacy. So while the restrictions aren't a requirement for this degree of security...
The sad reality is that the alternatives which do choose to be more open are also a hell of a lot more lax with privacy. So while the restrictions aren't a requirement for this degree of security and privacy, it's easy for the typical consumer to look over at Google or Microsoft using their platforms to hoover up and sell user data and feel Apple's stance is justified.
There are also times when ironically, the Apple ecosystem is the most open one, even if Apple never intended it. For smart home stuff for example, HomeKit is by far the most popular standard for...
There are also times when ironically, the Apple ecosystem is the most open one, even if Apple never intended it.
For smart home stuff for example, HomeKit is by far the most popular standard for individuals to build around because it’s the only one that’s local-network-first and is thoroughly reverse-engineered, and Apple hasn’t done anything to try to throw a wrench in that. Similarly, for local audio streaming, AirPlay by far has the most robust FOSS ecosystem and is cheap to get into even with official hardware only since 20 year old AirPort Expresses continue to be supported.
For HomeKit, Apple explicitly offered it as a member of the Matter consortium to be the standard for smarthome communication. Apple definitely intended for that to be open.
For HomeKit, Apple explicitly offered it as a member of the Matter consortium to be the standard for smarthome communication. Apple definitely intended for that to be open.
That’s true, I forgot about that. They’ve been doing it a long time too, basically since podcasts came into existence (which ties into why they’re called podcasts… they were originally intended to...
That’s true, I forgot about that. They’ve been doing it a long time too, basically since podcasts came into existence (which ties into why they’re called podcasts… they were originally intended to be synced to your iPod).
100% agree. Apple is good at marketing, but their business practices are pretty anti-consumer across the board. It always surprises me how many people jump to defend them as well. No, the giant...
100% agree. Apple is good at marketing, but their business practices are pretty anti-consumer across the board.
It always surprises me how many people jump to defend them as well. No, the giant multi-trillion dollar corporation does not care about your best interests.
I think the reason you see many jumping to Apple’s defense is because there isn’t anywhere else you can find such a well-integrated range of products across so many different categories. Open as...
I think the reason you see many jumping to Apple’s defense is because there isn’t anywhere else you can find such a well-integrated range of products across so many different categories. Open as they may be, it just can’t be fully replicated with e.g. Windows/Linux and Android. There’s a fear of losing that integration, because if Apple can no longer prioritize their own products, will they continue to maintain that seamlessness for users who want it? It might no longer be financially beneficial to do so in that scenario, and while Jobs might’ve been ok with that it’s much less clear that Cook would be.
On some dimensions but not all. E2EE is one of those things where there can’t really be an expectation of privacy unless the devices on both ends are trusted. They could do something like a...
A company with the resources of Apple could absolutely find a way to allow more 3rd party support without significantly compromising on security
On some dimensions but not all. E2EE is one of those things where there can’t really be an expectation of privacy unless the devices on both ends are trusted. They could do something like a licensing program for third party hardware AND the messaging software they run to comply with however iMessages is working, but that would be so burdensome and onerous that vendors would still complain and most probably would not bother.
In most cases, people just accept the risk that the recipient they’re talking to is not using compromised hardware or a compromised client on their end. It’s probably not a big deal for the vast majority of people, but becomes a big deal for a handful of people like celebrities and business owners.
With E2EE via imessage, I agree, but that's half of one bullet point in the article. Communication between the phone and watch could easily use some other method, and the other jank mentioned...
With E2EE via imessage, I agree, but that's half of one bullet point in the article. Communication between the phone and watch could easily use some other method, and the other jank mentioned wouldn't be that hard to fix.
that would be so burdensome and onerous that vendors would still complain and most probably would not bother.
Surely it'd be better to work with them to make it good rather than hobble it to the point of being legislated against like with the EU's Digital Markets Act (and all the publicity that comes with people rejoicing at Apple's loss)?
Longtime Apple supporters will recognise they've done some of their best work when they've been the underdog, forced to provide value, but nowadays it feels like they're just coasting on the success of iOS.
Communication between phone and watch is one of the most important to get security right on. With how notifications and messages are getting piped to it constantly, it’s a prime target for...
Communication between phone and watch is one of the most important to get security right on. With how notifications and messages are getting piped to it constantly, it’s a prime target for siphoning data and the implementation on the watch end is very likely to be the weakest link in the chain.
That’s actually the hardest part, making sure that compatible devices aren’t phoning it in and it’s actually safe to pass data to them.
The problem there is that one end of the chain is the hardware, so anything being displayed by that hardware is a potential point of compromise. Like I said, I think the way to do it is with a...
Communication between the phone and watch could easily use some other method
The problem there is that one end of the chain is the hardware, so anything being displayed by that hardware is a potential point of compromise.
Like I said, I think the way to do it is with a very restrictive “licensing” program that can get all support pulled if you violate it. But companies like Facebook and Amazon are too big for Apple to really enforce such rules on, which ends up fucking the whole ecosystem.
I really don’t like the EU approach to regulating these because they mostly just seem to be focused on punishing Apple (and other large American tech companies) instead of setting up better rules for the market. It’s often rules that are like “Apple unfairly privileges Safari so let’s further entrench a world where everything is Chrome/Blink.” Or “Apple’s App Store restrictions are anti-competitive so we need to create a world where Epic is reaping the profits of abusive casino games for kids instead.” It doesn’t feel like they’re addressing the root cause of the suckage so much as trying to make sure different players benefit from the suckage.
Thanks for articulating something I've been struggling to really condense when I get into this discussion. It's not that I want to be defending Apple as some kind of fan or cheerleader, it's that...
“Apple unfairly privileges Safari so let’s further entrench a world where everything is Chrome/Blink.” Or “Apple’s App Store restrictions are anti-competitive so we need to create a world where Epic is reaping the profits of abusive casino games for kids instead.”
Thanks for articulating something I've been struggling to really condense when I get into this discussion. It's not that I want to be defending Apple as some kind of fan or cheerleader, it's that "oh well we'll just blindly and artificially support the direct competitor" feels lazy and dangerous as legislation.
The DMA/EU stuff drives me nuts because normally the EU is intensely privacy focused, but with Apple they seem more angry or jealous of the company than they do supportive of their own citizens' privacy-mindedness.
Facebook/Meta is getting slapped down for their EU "pay or consent" model, while you can go to multiple newspapers including Der Spiegel and see the exact same pay or consent options being used....
Facebook/Meta is getting slapped down for their EU "pay or consent" model, while you can go to multiple newspapers including Der Spiegel and see the exact same pay or consent options being used. Privacy is only a human right when it comes to big American tech companies apparently.
EDIT: I'm just so glad I'm seeing people say something about the EU's hypocrisy. Got a little off topic here, my bad.
With regard to the weirdness of positioning Epic as a “good guy”, I have similar feelings about Spotify, which is about as loud as Epic is when it comes to complaining about Apple. They’re...
With regard to the weirdness of positioning Epic as a “good guy”, I have similar feelings about Spotify, which is about as loud as Epic is when it comes to complaining about Apple.
They’re probably the slimiest of the music streaming companies, constantly working to undermine the creators whose backs their empire is built upon, consistently acting in bad faith (e.g. doing nothing with the APIs Apple opens up access to after making a big racket about them being closed), and locking down what had been previously open ecosystems. They’re awful.
Really, to me it comes across more as, “your control over your corner of the map is impeding my monopoly” more than “you’re not playing fair”. I’d much more readily take complaints from small players seriously than anything Spotify says.
Getting a Javascript engine to run in PebbleOS forced us to go through many hoops due to iOS — creating a compiler inside the Pebble iPhone app that in itself needed to be written in (cross-compiled to) JS to work with Apple's restriction on downloadable code can only be JS
While that's an obnoxious restriction, I have to question their need to run Javascript on such a performance and energy-constrained device. Just because Javascript can run anywhere does not mean...
While that's an obnoxious restriction, I have to question their need to run Javascript on such a performance and energy-constrained device. Just because Javascript can run anywhere does not mean it's the best tool for the job.
Pebble has used JavaScript development kits for a long time since it's very simple and mobile friendly. The new watches will supposedly have a one month battery life, so I don't think JavaScript...
Pebble has used JavaScript development kits for a long time since it's very simple and mobile friendly. The new watches will supposedly have a one month battery life, so I don't think JavaScript is a problem.
Glad to see Pebble still kicking around. I gave mine up 4 or 5 years ago, but my Pebble Time was the best smart watch I ever had, I wish there was a modern version of it. I'll forever resent their...
Glad to see Pebble still kicking around. I gave mine up 4 or 5 years ago, but my Pebble Time was the best smart watch I ever had, I wish there was a modern version of it. I'll forever resent their buyout killing their product/company.
It was often reported as a "buyout", but Pebble actually went bankrupt - not on the verge of bankruptcy, like, legitimately filed in court bankruptcy, and Fitbit bought most of the assets and...
I'll forever resent their buyout killing their product/company.
It was often reported as a "buyout", but Pebble actually went bankrupt - not on the verge of bankruptcy, like, legitimately filed in court bankruptcy, and Fitbit bought most of the assets and hired most of the employees in that proceeding. You can see their court filings here: http://www.proofofclaims.com/PebbleTech/documents/
Pebble was already dead by the time Fitbit bought the ashes, and it's better that those employees continued to have jobs than not.
I get what you're saying but adding nuance to it mostly just moves the frustration back to Pebble and Eric. From what I remember at the time Fitbit also didn't keep employees on with possibly one...
I get what you're saying but adding nuance to it mostly just moves the frustration back to Pebble and Eric. From what I remember at the time Fitbit also didn't keep employees on with possibly one or two exceptions. It was almost entirely a patent/IP acquisition.
Making a new hardware product is always going to be risky, obviously more so when it's basically creating a new market segment. And I can understand overreaching and/or panicking a bit as the big tech companies saw an opportunity and started producing 1st and 2nd party smartwatches.
Its was still frustrating when Pebble went from projecting unmitigated optimism, starting to be sold in big box stores, launching Pebble 2 and the Core devices on Kickstarter in June/Sept(?), and then was gone by December.
I kind of appreciate that the rePebble rollout seems to be trying to go for a more slow and steady approach by mostly having a dev-focused device first with potentially a more commercial Pebble 3 to follow. I have concerns about that too, but hopefully it leads to a more stable company.
I wouldn’t put a business failing as a moral failing, though. A lot of people present the situation as a “betrayal”. But I don’t think it was. Pebble was just one of many businesses that fail....
I wouldn’t put a business failing as a moral failing, though. A lot of people present the situation as a “betrayal”. But I don’t think it was.
Pebble was just one of many businesses that fail. Running a business is hard, you can do everything right and still go out. Without hindsight it’s hard to what was smart and what was dumb. I can see how from Pebble’s point of view, the leviathans (Apple, Google, and Samsung) were starting to make their own watches - they needed to use their early market position and turn it into a moat. That’s what Netflix and Dropbox amongst others did, and they survived.
Most companies fail. It’s just how it is.
And it’s also not really fair to say that Fitbit “killed” pebble. Pebble killed itself, Fitbit had no obligation to revive the brand after they bought some assets at the garage sale.
Most companies fail and, full credit where it's due, Pebble failed incredibly gracefully with managing to guarantee refunds for the P2 kickstarter from fitbit. I agree that "betrayal" and "killed"...
Most companies fail and, full credit where it's due, Pebble failed incredibly gracefully with managing to guarantee refunds for the P2 kickstarter from fitbit.
I agree that "betrayal" and "killed" aren't fair representations. But with the combination of years of optimism, the outward appearance of growth, and the at the time recent, extremely successful crowdfunding campaign; it's not that surprising that people felt personally let down. It's the flipside to the company being extremely personable and transparent. The community expressing concern about specific people at the company getting/keeping their jobs after a bankruptcy / buyout isn't unique but it is rare. And it's a testament to how well Pebble was received and presented itself.
Like I said. Cautiously optimistic, just hope there's some lessons learned and this time around there's more focus on building a sustainable company.
Apple has successfully changed the narrative around their restrictions into talks about security and privacy.
It's just not the case. A company with the resources of Apple could absolutely find a way to allow more 3rd party support without significantly compromising on security, but they choose not to because it's more profitable for them if you only buy Apple watches and frame it as "we're the only company you can trust to keep your data secure".
The sad reality is that the alternatives which do choose to be more open are also a hell of a lot more lax with privacy. So while the restrictions aren't a requirement for this degree of security and privacy, it's easy for the typical consumer to look over at Google or Microsoft using their platforms to hoover up and sell user data and feel Apple's stance is justified.
There are also times when ironically, the Apple ecosystem is the most open one, even if Apple never intended it.
For smart home stuff for example, HomeKit is by far the most popular standard for individuals to build around because it’s the only one that’s local-network-first and is thoroughly reverse-engineered, and Apple hasn’t done anything to try to throw a wrench in that. Similarly, for local audio streaming, AirPlay by far has the most robust FOSS ecosystem and is cheap to get into even with official hardware only since 20 year old AirPort Expresses continue to be supported.
For HomeKit, Apple explicitly offered it as a member of the Matter consortium to be the standard for smarthome communication. Apple definitely intended for that to be open.
There’s also Podcasts, which is so open that most people don’t realize the iTunes Store is primary directory that everyone references.
That’s true, I forgot about that. They’ve been doing it a long time too, basically since podcasts came into existence (which ties into why they’re called podcasts… they were originally intended to be synced to your iPod).
100% agree. Apple is good at marketing, but their business practices are pretty anti-consumer across the board.
It always surprises me how many people jump to defend them as well. No, the giant multi-trillion dollar corporation does not care about your best interests.
I think the reason you see many jumping to Apple’s defense is because there isn’t anywhere else you can find such a well-integrated range of products across so many different categories. Open as they may be, it just can’t be fully replicated with e.g. Windows/Linux and Android. There’s a fear of losing that integration, because if Apple can no longer prioritize their own products, will they continue to maintain that seamlessness for users who want it? It might no longer be financially beneficial to do so in that scenario, and while Jobs might’ve been ok with that it’s much less clear that Cook would be.
On some dimensions but not all. E2EE is one of those things where there can’t really be an expectation of privacy unless the devices on both ends are trusted. They could do something like a licensing program for third party hardware AND the messaging software they run to comply with however iMessages is working, but that would be so burdensome and onerous that vendors would still complain and most probably would not bother.
In most cases, people just accept the risk that the recipient they’re talking to is not using compromised hardware or a compromised client on their end. It’s probably not a big deal for the vast majority of people, but becomes a big deal for a handful of people like celebrities and business owners.
With E2EE via imessage, I agree, but that's half of one bullet point in the article. Communication between the phone and watch could easily use some other method, and the other jank mentioned wouldn't be that hard to fix.
Surely it'd be better to work with them to make it good rather than hobble it to the point of being legislated against like with the EU's Digital Markets Act (and all the publicity that comes with people rejoicing at Apple's loss)?
Longtime Apple supporters will recognise they've done some of their best work when they've been the underdog, forced to provide value, but nowadays it feels like they're just coasting on the success of iOS.
Communication between phone and watch is one of the most important to get security right on. With how notifications and messages are getting piped to it constantly, it’s a prime target for siphoning data and the implementation on the watch end is very likely to be the weakest link in the chain.
That’s actually the hardest part, making sure that compatible devices aren’t phoning it in and it’s actually safe to pass data to them.
The problem there is that one end of the chain is the hardware, so anything being displayed by that hardware is a potential point of compromise.
Like I said, I think the way to do it is with a very restrictive “licensing” program that can get all support pulled if you violate it. But companies like Facebook and Amazon are too big for Apple to really enforce such rules on, which ends up fucking the whole ecosystem.
I really don’t like the EU approach to regulating these because they mostly just seem to be focused on punishing Apple (and other large American tech companies) instead of setting up better rules for the market. It’s often rules that are like “Apple unfairly privileges Safari so let’s further entrench a world where everything is Chrome/Blink.” Or “Apple’s App Store restrictions are anti-competitive so we need to create a world where Epic is reaping the profits of abusive casino games for kids instead.” It doesn’t feel like they’re addressing the root cause of the suckage so much as trying to make sure different players benefit from the suckage.
Thanks for articulating something I've been struggling to really condense when I get into this discussion. It's not that I want to be defending Apple as some kind of fan or cheerleader, it's that "oh well we'll just blindly and artificially support the direct competitor" feels lazy and dangerous as legislation.
The DMA/EU stuff drives me nuts because normally the EU is intensely privacy focused, but with Apple they seem more angry or jealous of the company than they do supportive of their own citizens' privacy-mindedness.
Facebook/Meta is getting slapped down for their EU "pay or consent" model, while you can go to multiple newspapers including Der Spiegel and see the exact same pay or consent options being used. Privacy is only a human right when it comes to big American tech companies apparently.
EDIT: I'm just so glad I'm seeing people say something about the EU's hypocrisy. Got a little off topic here, my bad.
With regard to the weirdness of positioning Epic as a “good guy”, I have similar feelings about Spotify, which is about as loud as Epic is when it comes to complaining about Apple.
They’re probably the slimiest of the music streaming companies, constantly working to undermine the creators whose backs their empire is built upon, consistently acting in bad faith (e.g. doing nothing with the APIs Apple opens up access to after making a big racket about them being closed), and locking down what had been previously open ecosystems. They’re awful.
Really, to me it comes across more as, “your control over your corner of the map is impeding my monopoly” more than “you’re not playing fair”. I’d much more readily take complaints from small players seriously than anything Spotify says.
This is wild lol
While that's an obnoxious restriction, I have to question their need to run Javascript on such a performance and energy-constrained device. Just because Javascript can run anywhere does not mean it's the best tool for the job.
Pebble has used JavaScript development kits for a long time since it's very simple and mobile friendly. The new watches will supposedly have a one month battery life, so I don't think JavaScript is a problem.
@babypuncher are you feeling okay
Well I just saw this post this morning too, maybe they'll get their wish sooner than they'd hoped.
https://techcrunch.com/2025/03/19/eu-sends-apple-first-dma-interoperability-instructions-for-apps-and-connected-devices/
"EU sends Apple first DMA interoperability instructions for apps and connected devices"
Glad to see Pebble still kicking around. I gave mine up 4 or 5 years ago, but my Pebble Time was the best smart watch I ever had, I wish there was a modern version of it. I'll forever resent their buyout killing their product/company.
It was often reported as a "buyout", but Pebble actually went bankrupt - not on the verge of bankruptcy, like, legitimately filed in court bankruptcy, and Fitbit bought most of the assets and hired most of the employees in that proceeding. You can see their court filings here: http://www.proofofclaims.com/PebbleTech/documents/
Pebble was already dead by the time Fitbit bought the ashes, and it's better that those employees continued to have jobs than not.
I get what you're saying but adding nuance to it mostly just moves the frustration back to Pebble and Eric. From what I remember at the time Fitbit also didn't keep employees on with possibly one or two exceptions. It was almost entirely a patent/IP acquisition.
Making a new hardware product is always going to be risky, obviously more so when it's basically creating a new market segment. And I can understand overreaching and/or panicking a bit as the big tech companies saw an opportunity and started producing 1st and 2nd party smartwatches.
Its was still frustrating when Pebble went from projecting unmitigated optimism, starting to be sold in big box stores, launching Pebble 2 and the Core devices on Kickstarter in June/Sept(?), and then was gone by December.
I kind of appreciate that the rePebble rollout seems to be trying to go for a more slow and steady approach by mostly having a dev-focused device first with potentially a more commercial Pebble 3 to follow. I have concerns about that too, but hopefully it leads to a more stable company.
I wouldn’t put a business failing as a moral failing, though. A lot of people present the situation as a “betrayal”. But I don’t think it was.
Pebble was just one of many businesses that fail. Running a business is hard, you can do everything right and still go out. Without hindsight it’s hard to what was smart and what was dumb. I can see how from Pebble’s point of view, the leviathans (Apple, Google, and Samsung) were starting to make their own watches - they needed to use their early market position and turn it into a moat. That’s what Netflix and Dropbox amongst others did, and they survived.
Most companies fail. It’s just how it is.
And it’s also not really fair to say that Fitbit “killed” pebble. Pebble killed itself, Fitbit had no obligation to revive the brand after they bought some assets at the garage sale.
Most companies fail and, full credit where it's due, Pebble failed incredibly gracefully with managing to guarantee refunds for the P2 kickstarter from fitbit.
I agree that "betrayal" and "killed" aren't fair representations. But with the combination of years of optimism, the outward appearance of growth, and the at the time recent, extremely successful crowdfunding campaign; it's not that surprising that people felt personally let down. It's the flipside to the company being extremely personable and transparent. The community expressing concern about specific people at the company getting/keeping their jobs after a bankruptcy / buyout isn't unique but it is rare. And it's a testament to how well Pebble was received and presented itself.
Like I said. Cautiously optimistic, just hope there's some lessons learned and this time around there's more focus on building a sustainable company.
new pebble watches